Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Chris Pringle
ParticipantYou don’t have to study history to be a ‘proper’ wargamer.
I agree. You just have to play games based on some aspects of war. That can include fantasy and science-fiction games. Fantasy gamers are wargamers too! Although by preference I am very definitely a historical wargamer, I will happily play fantasy games too, and feel no snobbery towards fantasy gamers. A good fantasy game can be far more fun than a diligently researched but turgid historical game.
Where I have been guilty of snobbery in the past is towards the nominally historical tournament games: generic battles, so many 100 points a side, minimal formulaic terrain, often between ahistorical opponents. It took me a long time to realise that this is neither “better” nor “worse” than what I do, it is simply an entirely different hobby, and people are pursuing it for different reasons from mine and getting their pleasure in a different way. That doesn’t devalue their pleasure. As Ruarigh said, all genres are valid. If someone gets their kicks from pitting Aztecs vs Vikings, who am I to sneer? So I don’t any more. And I apologise for any offence caused by any of my immature sneering in years gone by.
Having said that, I like to refight actual battles, and I research them thoroughly so I can write each scenario to capture the salient features of whatever battle it happens to be. I’m fully aware of my own fallibility, the limitations of my sources, and the fact that my scenarios are an interpretation rather than somehow definitive. But I did balk at one of my tournament gamer friends fresh from his Afrika Korps civil war looking at my finely crafted conflict simulation and saying “It’s all just fantasy really”, as if his game and mine were the same, when in (to me) important respects they are not. But he probably owed me a sneer!
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/
ParticipantLovely looking game, Alan!
There is a special pleasure to be had from commanding ponderous or inept armies like the 1859-vintage Austrians, or Crimean Russians, or 1870 French. Sometimes they’re so bad you just have to laugh. And occasionally you get that special reward when they surprise you by doing something in a swift, coordinated and competent manner.
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/
ParticipantWhat a lovely essay – thanks, John!
ParticipantPS to answer your actual question of why (I think) FPW and other late C19 wars are “completely amazing”:
“Why is this period so interesting? To answer that, consider the Napoleonic era which precedes it. By 1815, after 25 years of continuous continental warfare, broadly the same weapons and tactics are common to all European armies (albeit some are better at using them than others). The ‘holy trinity’ of protection, mobility, and firepower, as embodied by the three arms of infantry, cavalry, and artillery, is in perfect balance, making battle a kind of complex exercise of rock-scissors-paper between very similar forces.
But as the century wears on, disruptive technologies appear: breech-loading rifles in the 1840s, breech-loading rifled artillery in the 1850s, machine-guns and repeating rifles in the 1860s. And not only weaponry, but also railroads, steamships, ironclads, the telegraph, observation balloons …
And while technology develops apace, most nations spend most of the time at peace. Consequently, each time a war breaks out, the protection-mobility-firepower equation has been modified, and each time, the armies engaged have to learn new lessons the hard way – in some cases, the wrong lessons, which then cost them dearly in their next conflict.The bad news for the troops is that constant improvements in weaponry mean that maneuver under fire becomes more and more difficult, and battle gradually reduces to a contest between firepower and protection. This eventually reaches its apex in the static trench warfare of the First World War, with mobility squeezed out almost entirely.
But the good news for wargamers is that, for the few decades we are interested in, tactical maneuver persists. War continues to be decided not by long weeks or months of attrition across hundreds of miles, but by decisive clashes between whole armies lasting usually no more than a day or two. These are fought on battlefields just a few miles across, making it possible to capture an entire battle in one tabletop miniatures game.
Furthermore, the evolution of weapons and tactics means that many of these conflicts pit opponents of very different character against each other, making for some fascinating interactions at the tactical level.”
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
ParticipantTake a look at what Franz Decker and his friends in Munster have done with 2mm for 19th century battles: Montebello (1859), Langensalza (1866), Coulmiers (1870).
http://muenster-wargaming-english.blogspot.co.uk/
Absolutely beautiful work. Hope it inspires you!
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
ParticipantHi Mick,
“Planned” would be putting it too strongly. “Intended but with no particular deadline” would be near enough.
However, at the moment we are simply making more and more ACW scenarios freely available via the files of the BBB Yahoo group. The collection so far includes: Champion Hill; Chickamauga (draft); First Bull Run; Gettysburg; Shiloh; The Wilderness. At some point we may publish a printed set. But don’t wait for that. Come along, join the group, and help yourself.
Chris
ParticipantHi Colin,
In the US: Brigade Games , or On Military Matters .
In the UK: Caliver Books; you could also enquire at either North Star or Tumbling Dice as they stock other SkirmishCampaigns publications and may be carrying BBB now or soon.
I should have mentioned that as well as the BBB rulebook (which includes a 9-scenario campaign for the Franco-Prussian War) there is a companion book of 16 scenarios, Bloody Big European Battles (BBEB), which is also available from the vendors above.
Thanks for your interest, and I hope this helps.
Chris
ParticipantHi Guy, Steve,
Thanks very much for the kind words, chaps! It’s always better to hear about rules being endorsed by the players rather than just plugged by the author.
Guy, I’m glad you liked WE. WE was fun, but BBB is much more fully formed, with the benefit of a few more years of gaming and rules design under the belt and a very clear goal. It’s where I want to be now.
Quote of the day yesterday as far as I’m concerned was this one from the Baccus forum:
“I have found Bloody Big Battles to be my rules of choice for the FPW […] I have had some of the most enjoyable games in 50 years of wargaming with these rules.”
https://www.baccus6mm.com/forum/General/BaccStarter/366-1-FPWStarterPackContents/
Chris
-
AuthorPosts
